"Dutch" > wrote in message news:%bQvi.56647$rX4.37224@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:k3fvi.49532$_d2.45505@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
> >>>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >>>> Can't handle the truth eh?
> >>> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
> >>> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
> >>> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
> >>> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
> >>> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
> >> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
> >> I understand simple logic,
> >
> > But it isn't logical. Even if were true that people only wanted
> > to live (forgetting at the very least the need to live, to provide
> > for dependants in various ways),
>
> Or in some case the need is to *die* to protect one's loved ones.

In a few extreme cases. But thanks for that acknowledgement.

> In any
> case there is no such thing as an unqualified "need to live", it is a
> desire, however earnest.

Most people have dependants whom they need to provide for.

> > it does not follow that food
> > is not *needed* to live, for whatever reason the person lives.
>
> That's not what I said, I said no *particular* food is needed.

A non sequitur.

> > (MDG! what absolute trollocks).
> >
> >> however it's not what I said. What I said was
> >> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,
> >
> > What you wrote "No food is "necessary"." is in response to
> > what I said about a broad category, not any particular food.
>
> I include food from the meat category in my diet because it has proven
> beneficial to my health, and highly satisfying.

"i am a vegetarian because it IS the most healthy
diet FOR ME. i cured a bunch of chronic health
problems by quitting meat 20 years ago."
Dutch Nov 14 2000 http://tinyurl.com/cga8x

"I am a 15 year lacto-ovo vegetarian, a diet I chose for
health reasons. Meat has certain properties that disagree
with me, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's OK,
because I enjoy spectacularly good health ...."
Dutch 19 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4pqjq

"Answered already. Yes, for health reasons. On a "normal"
diet I tend more easily to obesity, infections, and gastric
problems. I can't even look at meat anymore after 17 years,
the aversion is in full control."
Dutch 27 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/5emp2

Isn't that interesting, folks. Confused? Don't be.

> There is no reasonable,
> rational argument which would necessitate eliminating it. Cherry picking
> study data will not do it.

So you admit that the data is there. Saying that the data - from
the most comprehensive epidemiological study and other large
studies, which shows that even small amounts of animal-based
'foods' causes a significant increase in chronic degenerative
diseases - doesn't represent a reasonable, rational argument, is
not reasonable nor rational, ditch, and will certainly "not do it".

> >> not beef, not chicken, not bread, not rice, not bananas nor cream
> >> pudding. They are all simply alternatives, preferences.
> >
> > 'Analyses
>
> Don't be an idiot. Quality plant foods are essential for good health, no
> argument there.

Evasion, predictably. -restore-

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet,
the greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of
known and unknown nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity,
a healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained
without animal-based food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal
heating, salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html